To point 1, then it is not "rape" in the truest form...it's a legality. "Statutory rape" is the term for underage / consenting / permissive sex act between two, age is the issue.

 

To point 2, passing around kiddie porn, I would submit, is a pure form of violence in a distorted person's world. Violence does not have to be a physical action and I would argue that the action that logically follows proves that the initial act is violent in and of itself.

 

Okay, let's debate.

 

To your point 1, legality or not, non-violent is non-violent. Now I would rather discuss things in general terms but since Jared is what got this all going we really need to know exactly (best we can) what Jared has been convicted of and then we can break it down even further. So what crimes was he convicted of? How old where the victims in each crime? Or to make it simple, exactly how was Jared convicted of rape? Or was he? I don't know the answer.

 

To your point 2, I think I have to refer you back to my post 132 and give you the same designation until you explain it further. In other words, if we are holding one person (in part) responsible for the violent acts of another we have a lot of people needing prison time including a whole generation of children. Again, I am thinking I don't fully understand your point 2 so I am waiting for more.

It's probably similar to someone who is a tad bit racist.

 

For another thread.

There is no such thing as: a "mild case of pedophilia". I would expect this from a Wiki reference....

 

I will assume that you see the difference between Jared and Jeffry Dahmer.

For another thread.

 

Not really wanting to discuss racism, simply pointing out that there really isn't such a thing as mild pedophilla, just as there isn't such a thing as mild racism, mild homophobia, whatever else you want to compare it to. You either are or you aren't.

Okay, let's debate.

 

To your point 1, legality or not, non-violent is non-violent. Now I would rather discuss things in general terms but since Jared is what got this all going we really need to know exactly (best we can) what Jared has been convicted of and then we can break it down even further. So what crimes was he convicted of? How old where the victims in each crime? Or to make it simple, exactly how was Jared convicted of rape? Or was he? I don't know the answer.

 

To your point 2, I think I have to refer you back to my post 132 and give you the same designation until you explain it further. In other words, if we are holding one person (in part) responsible for the violent acts of another we have a lot of people needing prison time including a whole generation of children. Again, I am thinking I don't fully understand your point 2 so I am waiting for more.

 

I'll bite:

 

Jared, an adult, looked at, traded, possibly took...pictures of non-adults. That's not statutory, that's purely legal and certainly well down the depraved mental health condition path....

 

Second point: you cannot lump the argument of non-adults being in the same realm as adults. Sexting between age appropriate (let's just say same age for sake of argument) while maybe not morally right, is not illegal, unless the action of violating personal privacy is invoked. Adults, engaging in child pornography, at any level of any kind, is illegal. Even if the offender is 18 and the "victim" is 17 and 11 months.

 

The courts may treat the latter with latitude, the former should never be treated similar.

 

As I said before, there is not such thing as a "mild case of pedophilia"

I will assume that you see the difference between Jared and Jeffry Dahmer.

 

Yes I do....one ate their victims, the other just thought about it...

I will assume that you see the difference between Jared and Jeffry Dahmer.

 

Dahmer cant be part of discussion, he was serial killer.

Yes I do....one ate their victims, the other just thought about it...

 

Dahmer cant be part of discussion, he was serial killer.

 

Dahmer was being used as an example that every sex offender can't be lumped into the same category as some have disturbing behavior, and others have EXTREMELY DISTURBING BEHAVIORS.

 

You're fine with ignoring the difference?

I'll bite:

 

Jared, an adult, looked at, traded, possibly took...pictures of non-adults. That's not statutory, that's purely legal and certainly well down the depraved mental health condition path....

 

Second point: you cannot lump the argument of non-adults being in the same realm as adults. Sexting between age appropriate (let's just say same age for sake of argument) while maybe not morally right, is not illegal, unless the action of violating personal privacy is invoked. Adults, engaging in child pornography, at any level of any kind, is illegal. Even if the offender is 18 and the "victim" is 17 and 11 months.

 

The courts may treat the latter with latitude, the former should never be treated similar.

 

As I said before, there is not such thing as a "mild case of pedophilia"

 

Jared could have come to KY and had sex with all the 16 and 17 year old girls he wanted to and it would have been perfectly legal.

I'll bite:

 

Jared, an adult, looked at, traded, possibly took...pictures of non-adults. That's not statutory, that's purely legal and certainly well down the depraved mental health condition path....

Second point: you cannot lump the argument of non-adults being in the same realm as adults. Sexting between age appropriate (let's just say same age for sake of argument) while maybe not morally right, is not illegal, unless the action of violating personal privacy is invoked. Adults, engaging in child pornography, at any level of any kind, is illegal. Even if the offender is 18 and the "victim" is 17 and 11 months.

 

The courts may treat the latter with latitude, the former should never be treated similar.

 

As I said before, there is not such thing as a "mild case of pedophilia"

 

So violent crime or not?

If we take your side of it that means anyone that has ever viewed even one pornographic image of a child is guilty of crime of violence. Furthermore if we take your side of it, that means all those people should be locked up for a long time, considered violent felony sex offenders, and if multiple acts of violence are committed against them in prison "that is just the way it goes."

 

Additionally, if we take your side, every 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17 year old boy (or girl for that matter) that likes to look at naked pictures of other children their same age is also a violent felony sex offender and should be treated the same.

 

To go one further, if any of those same 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17 year old boys or girls exchange naked pictures/snapchat each other (or especially any third party) they should also be considered a violent felony sex offender if we take your side.

 

Frankly, we would lose a whole generation of children because they would become violent felony sex offenders.

 

You can justify your trivializing rape however make you feel best. Fogle was caught with thousands of pictures and videos of commercial child pornography that featured children as young as 6 years old being abused. Commercial means he was buying and trading this filth, therefor he was contributing to it's ongoing production and to the ongoing rape of the kids being victimized. He also sought sex with girls who were "as young as possible ". Only he knows how young some of his victims were, because he very likely abused many more than the State had evidence of. So justify away.

You can justify your trivializing rape however make you feel best. Fogle was caught with thousands of pictures and videos of commercial child pornography that featured children as young as 6 years old being abused. Commercial means he was buying and trading this filth, therefor he was contributing to it's ongoing production and to the ongoing rape of the kids being victimized. He also sought sex with girls who were "as young as possible ". Only he knows how young some of his victims were, because he very likely abused many more than the State had evidence of. So justify away.

 

 

He hasn't trivialized rape.

I found the following:

 

Two of the victims, prosecutors said, were 16 when Fogle committed sex crimes against them. Fogle admitted to those charges and has agreed to plead guilty. But why wasn’t he charged with rape?

 

In many states, if a 37-year-old man victimizes a 16-year-old girl, it would be considered rape. (This is an addition but in even more states it would not be considered rape because the majority of states in America set the age of consent at 16)

 

But the charges announced against Fogle this week were federal. And according to Tim Horty, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana, there is no applicable federal law.

 

“There is no federal statute for rape in this situation that would have applied,” Horty said. “What always applies is that you cannot cross state lines to engage in commercial sex with anyone under 18.”

 

At the state level, things are different.

 

According to federal documents, Fogle admitted to engaging in the criminal activity in two swanky New York hotels: the Ritz Carlton and the Plaza. According to the federal documents, the girls were victims of criminal sex trafficking through a Web site that carries ads for “erotic services.”

 

New York law defines the age of consent as 17, and Fogle has admitted to victimizing both girls before — and after — they reached that age. (In other places, like Fogle’s home state of Indiana, the age of consent is sometimes defined as 16.)

 

Jared Fogle admitted to sex crimes against minors. Why wasn’t he charged with rape? - The Washington Post

 

======================

 

So, Jared was not charged with Rape, he crossed state lines to engage in commercial sex with someone under 18 and he possessed a lot of child porn. I wonder if the penalty is the same for a New York resident engaging in commercial sex with someone under 18? Or under 17 in New York since the age of consent in New York is 17. And since they wouldn't be crossing state lines.

 

It also appears if I am following this correctly that Jared could have had sex with as many 16 year old girls as he wanted to in his own state of IN (same with KY and the majority of states in America where the age of consent is 16) and I would need ruling on this one but I also assume that if the prostitution ring was based in Indiana the only charge would have been solicitation or something similar because there is no crossing of state lines and they would be within the age of consent but again I am speculating on this one.

Ignoring the fact that he possessed thousands of commercial child pornography images and videos, featuring children as young as six years old, does what for your arguments? I can also speculate and say that it is unlikely that Fogle did not have sex with children younger than he has admitted to. He said he wanted them "as young as possible" and he collected and traded pre pubescent porn. He is where he belongs and will get what he deserves.

I didn't ignore anything, in the post right above you I said:

 

he crossed state lines to engage in commercial sex with someone under 18 and he possessed a lot of child porn